Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"

[kjgdkjsgdskjdgksa]

Not to be silly, but if I believe there are no god(s), then what am I? I thought I was consider just an atheist and nothing more.

[Knowledge of God]

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

[LastPoet]

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

It's almost like christians looking at a mirror.

[Crossless2.0]

Not to be silly, but if I believe there are no god(s), then what am I? I thought I was consider just an atheist and nothing more.

You are an atheist. The question is whether you are an agnostic atheist (a.k.a. "weak" atheist) or a gnostic (or "strong") atheist. When you say you believe there are no gods, do you mean to make a knowledge claim, i.e., "I know there are no gods", or do you simply disbelieve without claiming to know? If the former, you are a gnostic/strong atheist and have assumed a burden of evidence/proof. If the latter, you are an agnostic/weak atheist -- as I and most other atheists I know of are. Essentially, the agnostic atheist position is that theists, who believe in the existence of a god or gods, make a positive claim about the nature of reality and have assumed a burden of evidence that they haven't met; therefore, it is reasonable to disbelieve their claims.

[kjgdkjsgdskjdgksa]

Not to be silly, but if I believe there are no god(s), then what am I? I thought I was consider just an atheist and nothing more.

You are an atheist. The question is whether you are an agnostic atheist (a.k.a. "weak" atheist) or a gnostic (or "strong") atheist. When you say you believe there are no gods, do you mean to make a knowledge claim, i.e., "I know there are no gods", or do you simply disbelieve without claiming to know? If the former, you are a gnostic/strong atheist and have assumed a burden of evidence/proof. If the latter, you are an agnostic/weak atheist -- as I and most other atheists I know of are. Essentially, the agnostic atheist position is that theists, who believe in the existence of a god or gods, make a positive claim about the nature of reality and have assumed a burden of evidence that they haven't met; therefore, it is reasonable to disbelieve their claims.

I believe we are going to be dust and dirt and that we're going to go nowhere.

[Crossless2.0]

I believe we are going to be dust and dirt and that we're going to go nowhere.

I do too, but that doesn't really answer to the question of where one stands on the existence of god(s). After all, there could be a deity and no after-life.

[kjgdkjsgdskjdgksa]

I believe we are going to be dust and dirt and that we're going to go nowhere.

I do too, but that doesn't really answer to the question of where one stands on the existence of god(s). After all, there could be a deity and no after-life.

It sounds nice when we think about going somewhere after death. We feel more relaxed about death (we as in some), but to me I do not believe in any god(s) nor do I think we have a higher power.

If we did have a god, I would wish for smarter people, but I think that is another fairy tale waiting to be told next.

P.S. I would wish for your avatar to be real too. How cute and funny would that be?

[Confused Ape]

The reason I think that atheists do that for this purpose is because whenever they get into a discussion about the existence of gods online, they ALWAYS start off by saying that atheism is a lack of belief, so they don't have the burden of proof. If the two weren't linked in terms of motivations, they wouldn't make the argument that way so routinely.

1) If a Christian starts a discussion about the existence of God by saying atheists have rejected God because they're angry with him, we have to define what atheism is. A lack of belief in deities is a useful term which covers various positions.

a) I lack belief in deities because of lack of evidence but I will change my mind if real evidence ever turns up.

b) I don't believe that deities exist. These people lack belief in deities too even though they are less neutral about it.

c) I know for a fact that deities don't exist. People who claim this still lack belief in deities.

2) If a theist claims they know for a fact that their deity exists the burden of proof is on them. This applies no matter which deity the theist believes in because the Christian God isn't the only deity which humans believe in.

3) If an atheist claims they know for a fact that no deity exists the burden of proof is on them. I'd never claim I know this for a fact because there are many different concepts of deity. I couldn't provide scientific proof that Brahman isn't absolute reality because science still hasn't discovered what absolute reality is.

So what about my own, personal opinion? I lack a belief that deities exist as objective realities. Where does the burden of proof apply here? Am I supposed to convince you or anyone else that I lack a belief that deities exist as objective realities?

[Whateverist]

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This Hallmark moment brought to you by Church of the Jealous God.

[TubbyTubby]

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

So how does this scripture translate for infidels? 'If you don't believe in god, you're a thick fucker'?